Conservatives: Why Do you think the GOP Cares About You?

[Cheerful Charlie]

Do you think the GOP Cares About You?

The evidence is quite clear that they as nearly all GOP initiatives seems to introduce more big government for the average Joe, fake tax cuts, but less taxes and oversight for the wealthy and businesses.

I thought all the parties produced fake tax cuts but did it a different way.

Bush's first round of tax cuts was aimed squarely at the 1%. The Democrats refused to support that and told Bush that if there was to be tax cuts it had to go mainly to the average working American. So we got our $300 and $600 tax cuts.

The later tax cuts went squarely to the rich and the Democrats couldn't stop it because the GOP supported that and controlled the House and Senate.

 

[Rayschism]

I got news for you.

No politician cares for us little guys. The only thing they care about is money and power. Democrat or Republican or whatever alike.

We're just peons that they pee on.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I got news for you.

No politician cares for us little guys. The only thing they care about is money and power. Democrat or Republican or whatever alike.

We're just peons that they pee on.

Even if that's true, Democrats still vote by-and-large for the little guy economically while Republicans don't.

 

[Elixir]

So Trump runs the country into the toilet: so what? As long as liberals hate it, and as long as the potential exists to silence them, that's really what matters. It's about the desire to oppress others, to have their ignorance vindicated by a strongman who's as course and nescient as themselves.

It has ever been thus, but the names have changed. Prior to the War of Northern Aggression, it was the negroes/slaves to whom the poor ignorant white man could point and say "I'm better than those sub-humans", making it acceptable if not palatable to be oppressed by the wealthy class. At that time, the wealthy were Democrats...

 

[Playball40]

I got news for you.

No politician cares for us little guys. The only thing they care about is money and power. Democrat or Republican or whatever alike.

We're just peons that they pee on.

And how do you know that? Do you know every single politician personally?

 

[Ford]

I got news for you.

No politician cares for us little guys. The only thing they care about is money and power. Democrat or Republican or whatever alike.

We're just peons that they pee on.

I've met my fair share of politicians, and this is not always the case. A friend's wife ran for state representative because as a teacher she'd seen our state's education system go in the toilet and wanted to fight for schools in the legislature personally. A cousin of mine was canvassing neighborhoods for a state rep, and after hearing over and over again how out of touch the guy was with constituents, turned around and ran against him. He won in part because he listened to the people in his district.

A few years ago I had a candidate for the state house stop by and ask if she could put a campaign sign in my yard. I declined, but had a nice conversation with her. Like my friend's wife, she was running because she wanted to fix our broken education system. That personal touch helped, apparently, because while she didn't win that round she won the next election and is now my representative. I think that at the local and state level there are plenty of people like this...who get into politics out of more or less pure motivations.

I've also met a few self-serving folks who are as you described. My former US Congressman was a total windbag. Probably one of the phoniest people I've ever met.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Most of the conservatives, Trump voters, and people who generally vote Republican that I know don't think the GOP cares about them, to answer your question.

It isn't a matter of the GOP caring about them so much as a matter of the GOP promising to get out of their way and so much as a strong dislike of Democrats mostly for social issues reasons.

That's what I get from my small sample of US GOP voters (and Trump voters) that I know.


PS - What is GOP (Grand Old Party?) supposed to mean?

 

[J842P]

Most of the conservatives, Trump voters, and people who generally vote Republican that I know don't think the GOP cares about them, to answer your question.

It isn't a matter of the GOP caring about them so much as a matter of the GOP promising to get out of their way and so much as a strong dislike of Democrats mostly for social issues reasons.

That's what I get from my small sample of US GOP voters (and Trump voters) that I know.


PS - What is GOP (Grand Old Party?) supposed to mean?

It's just a nickname.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_(United_States)#Name_and_symbols

The names for both of the current parties are sort of generic and non-controversial, meant to appeal to anyone.

 

[braces_for_impact]

IF I were conservative, of course I'm not, my concern wouldn't be whether the GOP cared about me specifically per se. The problem is, they don't seem to care about anybody, or more importantly perhaps for a politician, anything. There is some admirable traits about the (former) conservative mindset. In the past 20 or 30 years or so, most Republicans have abandoned their conservative principles, with an especially rapid jumping ship in the last ten years, which was essentially completed when they hitched their wagon to Donald Trump. Conservatives didn't used to be anti-science or alternative facts. They had different outlooks than liberals of course, but they weren't quite so filled with irrational hate - they could also be reasonable.

 

[Rayschism]

I got news for you.

No politician cares for us little guys. The only thing they care about is money and power. Democrat or Republican or whatever alike.

We're just peons that they pee on.

Even if that's true, Democrats still vote by-and-large for the little guy economically while Republicans don't.

Like Hillary being the poster child for Wallstreet billionaires and Saudi Arabian princes?

If that were true they would never have lost the vote of the working class people. Hillary really alienated them by her elitist out of touch attitude constantly insulting them for not being liberal.

 

[Elixir]

Even if that's true, Democrats still vote by-and-large for the little guy economically while Republicans don't.

Like Hillary being the poster child for Wallstreet billionaires and Saudi Arabian princes?

There is a significant difference. Twisting the arms of Saudi Princes for donations to a philanthropic organization is not the same as coddling dictators for personal gain.

 

[Rayschism]

Like Hillary being the poster child for Wallstreet billionaires and Saudi Arabian princes?

There is a significant difference. Twisting the arms of Saudi Princes for donations to a philanthropic organization is not the same as coddling dictators for personal gain.

I see no difference but maybe some sophistry.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There is a significant difference. Twisting the arms of Saudi Princes for donations to a philanthropic organization is not the same as coddling dictators for personal gain.

I see no difference but maybe some sophistry.

Hillary Clinton was not a poster child for Wall Street billionaires.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I see no difference but maybe some sophistry.

Hillary Clinton was not a poster child for Wall Street billionaires.

She was a sell out, but then so is most of the Democratic party and pretty much all of the Republican party.

Hillary's corporate sell out weakness wasn't so much with voters on the right, as with voters on the left, especially juxtaposed with Bernie.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Like Hillary being the poster child for Wallstreet billionaires and Saudi Arabian princes?

There is a significant difference. Twisting the arms of Saudi Princes for donations to a philanthropic organization is not the same as coddling dictators for personal gain.

Favours or monetary support can have habit of becoming reciprocal. While donations are not a problem it's very hard to avoid the possibility of a conflict of interest.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hillary Clinton was not a poster child for Wall Street billionaires.

She was a sell out, but then so is most of the Democratic party and pretty much all of the Republican party.

Hillary's corporate sell out weakness wasn't so much with voters on the right, as with voters on the left, especially juxtaposed with Bernie.

The extent to which they are "sell outs" depends on how much they've sold out their principles in exchange for money or promise of money. Some of these politicians, Hillary included, honestly believe that Wall St at the political table is good for America.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Even if that's true, Democrats still vote by-and-large for the little guy economically while Republicans don't.

Like Hillary being the poster child for Wallstreet billionaires and Saudi Arabian princes?

If that were true they would never have lost the vote of the working class people. Hillary really alienated them by her elitist out of touch attitude constantly insulting them for not being liberal.

I'd far rather have a politician who is a "poster child" for wall street than a poster child for Russia and the biblical right wing.

- - - Updated - - -

I see no difference but maybe some sophistry.

Hillary Clinton was not a poster child for Wall Street billionaires.

Agreed. She favored Dodd-Frank and was in discussion for additional regulations. Trump is in the process of dismantling Dodd-Frank. The difference between the two is pretty easy to see.

 

[untermensche]

I see no difference but maybe some sophistry.

Hillary Clinton was not a poster child for Wall Street billionaires.

It was under her husbands administration that the seeds for the mortgage crisis and then economic crisis were sewn.

She represented no significant check on corporate power.

Of course everyone is against corporate "crooks".

But nothing she proposed would have weakened the power of corporations to control the economy.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Hillary Clinton was not a poster child for Wall Street billionaires.

It was under her husbands administration that the seeds for the mortgage crisis and then economic crisis were sewn.

She represented no significant check on corporate power.

Of course everyone is against corporate "crooks".

But nothing she proposed would have weakened the power of corporations to control the economy.

Under her husband's administration, Republicans controlled congress and she was first lady. I agree he was "for" and signed things he should not have. However, while she was Senator, she did somewhat stand up to corporations through being for regulation. Maybe not enough and I'd like a Bernie better in the White House. However, there is a stark difference between Democrats and Republicans. Let's not pretend they are the same. They're not.

 

[Elixir]

There is a significant difference. Twisting the arms of Saudi Princes for donations to a philanthropic organization is not the same as coddling dictators for personal gain.

Favours or monetary support can have habit of becoming reciprocal. While donations are not a problem it's very hard to avoid the possibility of a conflict of interest.

HAHAHAHA!!
"Possibility" of conflicts of interest pervade every single member of Congress, and are fucking PERSONIFIED by the creep in the Whitehouse.